Obama mentor Edward Said symbolically throws a stone at Israel across Lebanese border, July 2000
With the start of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Washington, there is one overriding question:
What does the Obama administration think it will get out of this?
We know what the Palestinians want: They hope to see Israel forced to stop construction outside of the Green Line, while they push forward with EU-funded projects to create facts on the ground in Israeli-administered Area C. They hope to make it impossible for Israel to back away from the idea that the 1949 armistice lines are in fact the boundaries of ‘Palestinian land’, and not mere accidents of history. They want to further cement their narrative about history and international law, including fantastic conceptions like ‘right of return’ in the world’s – and America’s – consciousness. They have already gained agreement to the release of many convicted murderers, a humiliating loss of face for Israel and a huge propaganda victory for them.
We also know what Israel wants: To avoid an open break with the Obama Administration at a time of extreme peril for the Jewish state. A confrontation with Iran – or the lack of one, equally dangerous – is certain within the next year. Hizballah’s missiles and Iran’s nuclear program will not go away by themselves.Â While it would be dreaming to expect the US to take real action against Iran, it is essential to maintain at least nominal American support for Israel’s actions.
In Israel, only the extreme Left, for whom a complete removal of Jews from the territories isÂ literally more importantÂ than the survival of a Jewish state, thinks that it would be a good thing for Israel to sign an agreement with the PLO today.
It is impossible to imagineÂ that these talks will succeed (here are 22 good reasons why not). But nevertheless, the administration pushes on. Why?
I believe that the reason is a fundamental ideological commitment by Barack Obama, one on which he has not wavered since his election, to the Palestinian cause.Â He expressed this commitmentÂ to his friend Rashid Khalidi in 2003, who told Palestinian-Americans “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances.”
Note that I said “Palestinian cause,” not the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace. The difference is that although he pays lip service to Israeli security, it is clear that he gives it a very low priority compared to Palestinian sovereignty. It is impossible to know if he is actually hostile to the Jewish state, but at best he seems to think that its security will take care of itself, and focuses on the Palestinian side.
In his first term, Obama tried to get negotiations going onÂ very similar principles. But he made some tactical mistakes – primarily, not coordinating his plans with the Palestinians …read more